Whether he is trolling or not a Github pull request is the appropriate place to submit finished code ... not consider.it or slack.
He could have at least waited for all the NACk's to come in, but this does set an interesting example how consensus is formed in Classic.
I am not going to whine about censorship , because the Classic maintainers have every right to close that pull request, but lets not lie to ourselves and suggest that Classic is any more democratic than Core.
Having a wide range of choice between multiple implementations, is in fact more democratic compared to just having Core as the singular choice, which in reality is not really a choice at all, when there is only one option to choose from.
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.
Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later. They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme,
but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it. I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.
That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...